Am I being “ selfish” not to want to do childcare in retirement?

[Oldbutstillgotit]

At the age of 64 I am retiring at Christmas. I am so looking forward to it. Because some of my friends are having to work until they get their State Pension, I have tried not to talk about it too much and have just mentioned it in passing.
A couple of weeks ago I had lunch with one of my oldest (40+ years)friends and told her my news. She seemed really pleased for me and asked what I would do . I downplayed our plans but emphasised how much I am looking forward to it .

A few days ago, my friend asked to meet me for a coffee and a chat. The bottom line is that her DD ( who is also my God daughter) is returning to work on January after Maternity Leave and wants me to look after her baby who will be 5 months old . I was a bit shocked but said that i had no plans to take another job so sorry but no. My friend really put pressure on saying that her DD cannot afford to pay for childcare but has to return in January as she has no income otherwise .
I don’t want to drip feed nor do I want to discuss my God daughter’s finances but there is no way her DH will contribute to childcare . GD has no access to his money and has to pay 50% of the bills. If she has to pay childcare she will be left with less than£20 a month.
Again I said no and I explained some of our plans . DH is 10 years older than me and has waited a long time for me to retire and we want to travel.

My DD suggested I offer 1 day but I don’t want to even do that ! I have - willingly- provided a huge amount of childcare for DGS but he is nearly 13 so I am not needed so much .

Anyway , my friend emailed me yesterday and accused me of being selfish. DH is totally against me helping but I feel that a long standing friendship will be ruined if I continue to refuse .
What do you think ?

puffyisgood Why should the OP (or anyone else approaching
retirement who have grandchildren) offer to tie themselves down even for one day a week? This comes up over and over again on Mumsnet and it is such an unreasonable attitude.

I would be happy to help out my adult kids with emergency childcare, happy to babysit, happy to have the grandchildren for a weekend now and then or even for longer for their parents to go away for a planned in advance break. But tie myself down in retirement after a lifetime of bringing up my own kids and working hard? NO! I want freedom to come and go as I want. If I want to go off for a month on a whim, at my age I should be able to do so..I have spent the last 45 years being at everyones beckon call. Retirement is my time, my time to be free and enjoy life with my DH. I love my grandchildren to pieces, but I was given no choice about their being born (and neither should i have been of course), so I fail to see why I should be expected to taylor my life to look after them on an ongoing basis, where it restricts my choices for the forseeable future.

I believe we all have a respnsibility to support each other within families, but I dont believe one family member is more important than another. The idea that grandparents SHOULD take on childcare on a regular basis means that their own needs are being shoved to the bottom of the pile. Life is short, I've more than done my share and will continue to help as and when I can on an ad-hoc basis, but I won't be structuring my retirement in a way that means my own freedom is restricted on an ongoing basis.

Hello everyone. My original AiBU was answered so I was going to leave the thread however it has raised so many questions I thought I would pop back, not to drip feed but rather to offer some sort of excuse ( not reason) for the DH’s behaviour over the money issue . He bought their house thanks to money from his parents and a large inheritance so his view is that he has brought a lot more to the marriage so my GD needs to “ buckle down” . Again , not my words . His parents aren’t keen on GD so that May cloud his views. To a reasonable person this is bonkers but that’s the situation. Anything to do with the baby ( there is no question she isn’t his) is , according to him, her responsibility. He uses the term “ sponging off “ a lot so you can see his mindset. Apologies for this ramble but I am on my tea break !!

she married a right twat-sad but still not your problem she never shoujld have had kids with someone like that

Wow!

The sponger is definitely the DH.

He bought his house courtesy of his DP and family money and now he expects his DW to keep herself and their DC. And he spends his time apologising for her to his DPs who don't approve. If DGD was getting to be a kept woman in this situation I could see the Faustian logic but I am not seeing it here.

Ha I hope the god daughter takes him to the cleaners when she finally sees the light ☺️

Ironic how GD will be so much better off if she divorces him!!!

So why doesn't she divorce him and get her pay out from the house value?

Please don't say she signed a pre-nup.

If she is choosing to stay with him for the prestige of having a fancy lifestyle then i'm afraid I can't sympathise with her.

Prenups aren’t worth the paper they are written on. I know people who are staying with morons for a lot less money than the OP’s GD ... fear of the unknown is understandable

It is possible his parents made a loan not a gift of the money though so in divorce you take off all loans and then divided what is left according to what percentage the couple agree or the court decides.

Yeah my ex tried that nonsense - the judge didn’t go for it

It amazes me that in this day and age women will still put up with this abuse for the sake of a few Gucci handbags and a big house. It's so sad for the child :(

Hope you enjoy your retirement op x good luck

I honestly can’t believe this nonsense. She’s really a fool to stay.

So basically he's been given everything he's got, but she needs to work for hers. What a prick. But the song remains the same. She's putting up with it.

I do wonder, though, how much he wanted DD. The only man I've ever known to treat his wife this way regarding child-related things was a man who only agreed to have a child if she accepted it would be 100% her responsibility. She accepted the 'deal' thinking that once the baby was here 'he'll change'. He didn't and stuck to his guns. And his wife had to do literally everything for her. He wouldn't even bring her a glass of water if she was holding the sleeping baby. If she ran to her daddy, he'd redirect her to her mum. I lost track of them when our DC were about 3. This was 30 years ago and I often wonder what happened to them.

If someone challenged the behaviour of this selfish DH, along the lines of 'oh, we assumed it wasn't your child as you aren't supporting it' then he might get the idea.

He might be more worried about appearing to be a cuckold than appearing to be a selfish idiot.

God forbid he use some of that free money to pay for childcare for HIS OWN CHILD. someone needs to give this little boy man a wake up call.

Do not do it. I have done it for 5 years and it is exhausting

That sounds like a brilliant idea, Woolly! I bet he'd hate that, really get offended by it, the arrogant, sponging, entitled prick.

FaginsGal

👏👏👏
Exactly!

I wonder how he would react to a boy child. You know Heir to his name and fortune ?

''his parents and a large inheritance'' in his words paid for their house. So, he's the sponger...

She needs to ring Rights of Women because if he wants to play the anything to do weith the baby is her, according to him, her responsibilty then that's DGD cue to protect baby's financial care aswell as baby's mother.

But she won't becuase she doesn't want to rock the boat...

However, speaking of water.
I remember being taught on my Bronze Medallion Life Guard qulaification in the swimming pool that when the person drowning attempts to push the rescuer underneath them to raise themselves out of danger and gasp for air through sheer panic (apparently a common instinct), that the safest and quickest way for the rescuer to stop themselves being drawn under and ultimately save the drowner is for the rescuer to immediately push the drowner away and physically back away in the water...

You very quickly see how the drowner stops flapping and starts listening to the words of their rescuer...

sometimes the most powerful thing you can do is nothing

Oldbutstillgotit your update makes a lot of sense.

His family probably worked for the money (probably not as wealthy as you think) and are so wrapped up in money that anyone marrying their precious baby would be regarded as a gold digger or sponger but otoh they sound like very new money and like to keep up appearances.

Their Ds hasn’t really broken away from his family and anything they say he absorbs and spits out in your dgd direction.

The fact it wasn’t his money that bought the house I suspect dh is playing at being a millionaire businessman

Ha, surely he means her parents should have "buckled down".

You've done the right thing OP. I think GDs is so deeply entrenched in the situation she can't see sense. She needs to feel full consequences of what he is he expecting. Hopefully one day she'll think Wtf whilst she runs around like a headless chicken working full time only to see it all going on childcare because her husband is a selfish prick.

He bought their house thanks to money from his parents and a large inheritance ....He uses the term “ sponging off “ a lot so you can see his mindset.

He's the sponger.

He's also disgusting and she's an idiot. If she thinks anyone aspires to a lifestyle of financial and emotional abuse then she needs psychiatric help.

He is sponging on her. But I am still surprised at her behaviour.

She is effectively a single mother as far as bringing up her child is concerned. Plenty of single mothers have to go to work and pay for childcare, difficult as that is.